Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu/310

204 seems never to have played his Violin Concertos in public. Viotti and Rode were Spohr's models for his earlier Concertos.

Towards the end of the 17th century Paris became the undisputed centre of violin-playing, and the Paris school, represented by Viotti, as depository of the traditions of the classical Italian school; by (1766–1831), who, though born at Versailles, was of German parentage, and a pupil of Anton Stamitz; and by  (1774–1830), and  (1771–1842), both Frenchmen, assumed a truly international character. The single circumstance that four violinists of such eminence lived and worked together at the same place, and nearly the same time, would be sufficient to account for their essential influence on the taste and style of this period. Differing much in artistic temperament, they all took the same serious view of their art, and shared that musical earnestness which is averse to mere technical display for its own sake, and looks on execution as the means of interpreting musical ideas and emotions. As teachers at the newly founded Conservatoire, Rode, Kreutzer, and Baillot formally laid down the principles of violin-playing as they prevail to this day. If it is to Germany that we have to look for their true successors, apparently because their style, founded on a broad and truly musical basis, irrespective of national peculiarities, found its most congenial soil in the country of the great composers, who in their works are truly international, as all art of the very first rank must be; while the strongly pronounced national character of French violinists was bound sooner or later to assert itself, and to return to a characteristically French style of playing. Baillot, in his 'L'Art du Violon,' points out as the chief distinction between the old and the modern style of violin-playing, the absence of the dramatic element in the former, and its predominance in the latter. In so far as this means that the modern style better enables the player to bring out those powerful contrasts, and to do justice to the enlarged horizon of ideas and emotions in modern musical compositions, it merely states that executive art has followed the progress, and shared in the characteristic qualities of the creative art of the period. A comparison of Mozart's String Quartets with those of Beethoven, illustrates to a certain extent this difference. The style of playing which was admirably adapted for the rendering of the works not only of Corelli and Tartini, but also of Handel, and even Mozart, could not cope with Haydn, and still less with Beethoven. The great merit of the masters of the Paris School was, that they recognised this call for a freer and bolder treatment of the instrument, and approached their task in a truly musical and artistic spirit.

The manner and style of the Paris school were brought to Germany by Viotti and Rode, who both travelled a great deal, and by their performances effected a considerable modification in the somewhat antiquated style then prevailing in that country. The Mannheim school, as already mentioned, was the most important centre of violin-playing in Germany during the second half of the 18th century. It produced a number of excellent players, such as the three Stamitzes, Chr. Cannabich, Ferd. Fränzl, and others. They had adhered more closely than the French players to Tartini's method and manner, and not only Spohr, but before him Mozart, speaks of their style as old-fashioned, when compared with that of their French contemporaries. The fact that the last and final improvements in the bow as made by Tourte of Paris, were probably unknown to them, would account for this. [See p. 155.] Another remarkable player belonging to this school, was (born 1766), whose brother and pupil  (1774–1809), was the teacher of Spohr. Both the Ecks appear to some extent to have been under the influence of the French school. Spohr in his Autobiography speaks of Franz Eck as a French violinist. Spohr therefore can hardly be reckoned as of the Mannheim school, and we know that later on he was greatly impressed by Rode, and for a considerable time studied to imitate him. His earlier Concertos are evidently worked after the model of Rode's Concertos. Thus—granting the enormous difference of artistic temperament—Spohr must be considered as the direct heir of the art of Viotti and Rode. At the same time, his individuality was so peculiar, that he very soon formed a style of his own as a player no less than as a composer. As a composer he probably influenced the style of modern violin-playing even more than as a player. His Concertos were, with the single exception of Beethoven's Concerto, by far the most valuable contributions to the literature of the violin, as a solo instrument, hitherto made. Compared even with the best of Viotti's, Rode's, or Kreutzer's Concertos they are not merely improvements, but in them the Violin Concerto itself is lifted into a higher sphere, and from being more or less a show-piece, rises to the dignity of a work of art, to be judged as much on its own merits as a musical composition, as by its effectiveness as a solo-piece. Without detracting from the merits of the works of the older masters, it is not too much to say that there is hardly enough musical stuff in them to have resisted the stream of superficial virtuoso-music which more than ever before flooded the concert-rooms during the first half of the 19th century. We believe that it was mainly owing to the sterling musical worth of Spohr's violin compositions that the great qualities of the Classical Italian and the Paris schools have been preserved to the present day, and have prevented the degeneration of violin-playing. Spohr had great powers of execution, but he used them in a manner not wholly free from one-sidedness, and it cannot be said that he made any addition to the technique of the instrument. He set a great example of